Next Article in Journal
Cognitive Study Strategies and Motivational Orientations among University Students: A Latent Profile Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Gender Differences in Computational Thinking Skills among Primary and Secondary School Students: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/educsci14070791
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementing Ontario’s Right to Read Report’s Recommendations

by
Deanna C. Friesen
* and
Abagail Hennessy
Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON N6G 1G7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(7), 791; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070791
Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 15 July 2024 / Published: 21 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Special and Inclusive Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2022, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released the Right to Read Report that outlined 157 recommendations for literacy instruction in Ontario, Canada. For educators, these recommendations included using structured literacy in their classrooms. The present study investigated teachers’ perceptions of how difficult implementing these recommendations would be and what they saw as facilitators and barriers. Teachers reported that starting structured literacy practices would be easier than both stopping current practices (e.g., cueing, running records) and providing more intensive instruction or intervention to struggling students. They also noted that initial teacher training programs need to do more to prepare teacher candidates. They identified teacher training, classroom resources, funding, and teacher beliefs as the factors that can serve equally as facilitators and barriers to successful implementation. Recommendations are offered by teachers to ease a shift towards structured literacy practices.

1. Introduction

Learning to decode words is a critical skill that young students tackle in their first few years of formal education. This ability to “crack the code” in alphabetic languages by learning spelling–sound correspondences enables children to independently identify an oral word (i.e., its phonology) from its spelling (i.e., its orthography). Doing so is a powerful mechanism as it allows children to make the connection between a word’s spelling and its meaning through their oral language knowledge [1]. Subsequent repeated decoding opportunities with a word enable strong associations to be formed between the word’s spelling and its meaning such that sight words are developed and fluency increases [2,3]. Words that contain irregularities with respect to part of their pronunciation (e.g., have) can be learned by trying different vowel pronunciations and becoming increasingly familiar with the exceptions [4]. Importantly, it is this fluent word recognition ability that underscores successful reading comprehension [2,5]. However, without these foundational reading skills, students consistently fall behind their peers and the reading achievement gap widens throughout their education [6,7]. Consequently, there is a need to ensure that all students are receiving systematic phonics instruction and that teachers feel prepared to deliver evidence-based literacy instruction. The current study examined educators’ beliefs about the feasibility of adopting structured literacy practices in Ontario’s classrooms, wherein this adoption reflects a paradigm shift for most Ontario educators.
The importance of ensuring effective literacy instruction for young readers cannot be overstated as the impacts of poor early reading skills are not limited to reading achievement. Research has established that students who fail to develop strong early reading skills are at risk for poor academic, employment, and mental health outcomes [6,8]. Specifically, students with a reading disability (RD) are at a greater risk of adverse school and mental health outcomes than those without RD [9,10,11,12,13]. Students with learning disabilities have among the highest prevalence rates for exceptionalities in Ontario [6]. Early identification of reading difficulties and early intervention are particularly important for these students [12]. Nonetheless, all students should receive effective early reading instruction in the classroom to minimize the number of students who must undergo remediation to “catch-up” to their peers.

1.1. Ontario’s Right to Read Inquiry

In 2019, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) launched an inquiry into early literacy instruction and student reading achievement in Ontario schools as concerns were raised that students were not meeting grade-level expectations. The OHRC gathered data from school boards, faculties of education, and the Ministry of Education. Parents, teachers, and students also provided their experiences from surveys, community meetings, and public hearings. The inquiry’s focus was directed at foundational word-level reading skills due to their recognized importance in learning to read [14]. Key foci were determining whether Ontario schools were using evidence-based practices to teach these skills in the general education classroom and whether a tiered approach to more intensive instruction was used to support students who were struggling [6].
In February 2022, the OHRC officially released the “Right to Read” (R2R) report. Key curriculum and instructional recommendations made to all stakeholders concerned the shift from the ‘balanced literacy’ approach used in classrooms towards the ‘structured literacy’ approach. In a balanced literacy approach, word reading development is addressed by encouraging guessing strategies based on different types of cues (e.g., using picture cues). Cueing systems value using semantic and syntactic information to the same degree as spelling–sound correspondences to identify words [6]. They also advocate using running record assessments to assign students’ reading level and then having students use levelled books to practice reading based on their assessed level of reading achievement. Unfortunately, these approaches are not evidence-supported strategies to learn decoding and fail to support struggling readers [6,15,16].
The Right to Read report emphasized the importance of explicitly teaching phonics and using materials such as decodable texts (i.e., books that include specific letter–sound patterns that align with what is being taught) to foster foundational word reading skills [6]. The report does not endorse using one type of phonics instruction over another. Synthetic phonics (i.e., teaching letters and their sounds to build words through blending) vs. analytic phonics (identifying letter patterns in words, e.g., word bodies) are each valuable approaches. One current perspective is that “analytic and synthetic methods do not have to be an either/or choice, but a question of when and for what purpose” [17] (p. 25). Additionally, the report recommends maintaining an emphasis on “incorporating other aspects of a comprehensive approach to literacy which are addressed in the research science such as evidence-based instruction in oral language, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge and spelling and writing” [18] (p. 222). As such, the report does not deny the importance of a language-rich classroom but articulates best practices for teaching children how to identify words.
Further, the report recommends a tiered approach to reading intervention, whereby all students are screened early for word reading difficulties. Students identified as at-risk may then receive small group evidence-based intervention or individualized intervention for those requiring more support [19,20]. The goal of these recommendations is to ensure students are receiving systematic instruction in foundational reading skills in the classroom to optimize reading success and minimize the number of students struggling with word reading difficulties [6,18].

1.2. Recent Literacy Education History in Ontario

The recommendations made by the OHRC represent a substantial shift for educators in Ontario. Until 2023, Ontario’s elementary language curriculum (Grades 1–8) had not been updated since 2006 [21]. In the early 2000s, the Ministry of Education formed an expert panel on early reading to improve reading achievement in Ontario comprised of teachers, principals, administrators, and researchers. In 2003, this panel released their report entitled Early Reading Strategy: The Report of the Expert Panel on Early Reading in Ontario. This report outlines key elements of effective reading instruction for all students, emphasizing evidence-based instruction and explicit teaching of phonics [22]. These recommendations are fundamentally similar to those of the Right to Read report, released 20 years later. However, the 2006 language curriculum did not incorporate these recommendations, instead focusing on a balanced literacy approach to reading instruction. For example, discovery-based practices such as cueing systems underlie much of this curriculum in the early grades [21]. Consequently, for at least 20 years, the approach to literacy instruction in Ontario has not aligned with best practices for learning to decode words.
The 2006 curriculum’s emphasis on balanced literary approaches reflects the state of literacy instruction in Ontario up to 2022. Teacher training in Faculties of Education has favoured this model and reading resources have been heavily invested in running record assessments and levelled readers [6]. Thus, the recommendations released by the OHRC represent a significant shift for teachers in Ontario as they have not consistently received training or materials in structured literacy as it pertains to teaching word reading. Further, there remain disagreements as to whether students in Ontario were receiving sufficient word reading instruction to meet their needs prior to the release of the recommendations [23,24]. At 157, the sheer number of interconnected recommendations pertaining to the language curriculum, teacher education, and pedagogy may feel overwhelming for the education sector to implement. To aid in this shift, it can be informative to examine how other countries who have already shifted policies have managed the transition with their educators.

1.3. Reading Policy in the UK and US

Education policy in the United Kingdom (UK) has moved towards requiring synthetic phonics instruction in early years [25,26]. Indeed, the UK has made changes to teacher education programs which require that student teachers demonstrate their understanding of systematic phonics-based instruction. Curriculum changes similarly shifted from a balanced literacy approach to requiring a synthetic phonics-based pedagogy [25] and mandatory word-level screening has been implemented in Year 1 and 2 of schooling [26]. Such mandated changes remain controversial and are not universally accepted as best practice [25,26]. Nonetheless, research investigating teacher perceptions around this shift has highlighted the importance of a couple factors. One is the need for support from universities in helping newly qualified teachers understand the ‘why’ behind effective word reading instruction. The second factor is providing adequate funding to support reading programs [27].
Over the years, the science of reading discourse has also been at the forefront of reading reform in the US. Following the US National Reading Panel Report (2001) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002), the federal government invested significantly in science-based K-3 reading instruction as well as the use of accountability measures (standardized achievement tests) [28,29]. Various policy changes have been suggested or implemented that reflect an increasing emphasis on explicit foundational reading skills. Some of these include increasing course time focused on phonics instruction/early literacy and science-based reading instruction examinations for teacher candidates [30,31]. However, teachers struggle to get on board with these changes when research is ineffectively communicated, framing the problem strictly as a “lack of knowledge” issue or the solution as an overly prescriptive curriculum that limits teacher’s autonomy in the classroom [30,32]. Resistance to change can also be exacerbated by the media placing blame on teachers and dichotomization (i.e., “reading wars”) [31].
Several insights can be drawn from these past policy shifts in reading instruction and the educators’ responses. First, it is important to find common ground to communicate and collaborate among educators, policymakers, and researchers [30]. Second, teachers should be perceived as agents of change as opposed to barriers or a problem to be ‘fixed’ [31]. Thus, policymakers must listen to educator voices to understand the best ways to put policy into practice. Lastly, shifts require substantial work and time (i.e., are gradual not sudden), especially when there are strongly held beliefs or educators who are trained with different approaches [33]. To encourage teachers to embrace these changes, training and professional development must be readily available. Teachers who do not feel confident in new approaches will be less likely to implement them or they may only make partial use of recommendations [34].

1.4. The Current Study

The goal of the current study was to investigate what supports classroom teachers identify as necessary to successfully implement the recommendations from the OHRC’s Right to Read report. Since it is teachers who will be implementing the recommendations in the classroom, it is imperative to understand their perceptions of facilitators and barriers in the Ontario context. Ontario teachers can offer unique insights based on their experiences within the classroom and with diverse learner needs. They can also provide insight into school culture, school board priorities, and their colleagues’ beliefs (e.g., buy-in from their school community). We aimed to address the following questions: (1) How much professional development support have teachers received in the science of reading? (2) What recommendations for the classroom are going to be easiest to implement? (3) What are factors that facilitate and impede successful implementation of the OHRC’s recommendations? Understanding teachers’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to applying these recommendations in school is crucial for promoting successful implementation.
Teachers were provided with an online questionnaire that asked about (1) their professional development opportunities, (2) their teacher education experience, (3) ratings of ease of recommendation implementation, and (4) perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing recommendations. Given that these data were collected at the very beginning of the shift, it was hypothesized that teachers would report receiving different amounts of training in structured literacy during professional development from their school boards. Additionally, it was hypothesized that teachers would report receiving minimal instruction in structured literacy from their teacher education programs. Finally, we predicted that the barriers identified by teachers would be associated with their assessments of how easily recommendations could be implemented in their classrooms. An understanding of teachers’ perceived barriers will provide insight into supports necessary to implement the Right to Read report’s recommendations successfully.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Thirty female elementary teachers from Ontario, Canada, participated in this study. Their average age was 42.1 (SD = 8.7; range = 23 to 56 years) and they had 15.7 years of teaching experience on average (SD = 7.5, range = 1 to 31 years). On average, respondents had 7.1 years of primary teaching experience (Grade 1 to 3; SD = 5.3 years), 3.3 years of junior teaching experience (Grades 4 to 6; SD = 4.0 years), and 2.4 years of special education teaching experience (SD = 4.7). Twenty-two respondents reported that they were current classroom teachers and seven respondents indicated that they were currently working in a learning support teacher role (i.e., special education). One teacher did not report their current role. However, 16 respondents had at least one year of experience working in special education.

2.2. Materials and Procedure

Questionnaire on the Right to Read report. This questionnaire was developed by the authors for this study to specifically address the recommendations that were relevant to classroom teachers. It included items on their professional development experiences both as a current teacher and during their teacher education program. Questions about the recommendations on in-class literacy activities were also posed. Each recommendation for teacher education and literacy practices was taken verbatim from the Executive Summary of the Right to Read report. Minor edits were made for clarity. Finally, questions on factors that act as facilitators and barriers to implementation were also included. Questions included a combination of Likert scale and open-ended questions. See the OSF website at Supplementary Materials for a complete copy of the questionnaire.
Teachers were recruited through social media groups, list servs from the university’s faculty of education, and from local school boards in the 2022–2023 academic year (from September to June). This period was the academic year immediately after the Right to Read report was released in February 2022 and before the new language curriculum was released in June 2023; thus, it was a period of uncertainty for educators. Recruitment was undertaken as part of a larger project that provided an online asynchronous professional development module on reading disabilities for teachers. No mention of the R2R report was made in the recruitment materials. During consent, participants were told that they would be undertaking a series of questionnaires after the professional development module including a questionnaire about their opinions on the R2R report. The questionnaire was administered as the last task of the asynchronous online session and participants had unlimited time to complete the questions. They were told that the R2R report was released in February 2022 and that the report made several recommendations for changes to literacy instruction in Ontario. They were asked to answer questions on their experiences and opinions with respect to some of the R2R recommendations. The entire session could be completed in an hour. The project was approved by the University of Western Ontario’s Non-Medical Ethics Review Board (Protocol: 120120).

3. Results

3.1. Professional Development Opportunities

Teachers were asked to rate statements pertaining to their knowledge about the Right to Read report and the Science of Reading on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Table 1 provides their mean responses and the frequency of each response for each statement. Respondents predominantly agreed that they were aware of the R2R report, but only half of respondents agreed that they had received training or resources to implement its recommendations.
In an open-ended question, respondents reported what professional development (PD) experiences they had received. Nine teachers indicated that they had no professional development. Thirteen respondents indicated either their school (four teachers) or their school board (nine teachers) had provided information in the form of workshops, coaching or resources. Sixteen respondents indicated that they had sought out their own professional development through external organizations’ workshops. Here are a few statements provided by respondents to demonstrate the variability of the opportunities provided to teachers. P23 said “I don’t think I have heard of this or received opportunities for it”. P19 indicated that “other than a few staff meeting discussions surrounding the Right to Read document and support from my administration in pursuing some PD and obtaining some resources, I have not received much. I have done the learning and pursued PD on my own time and dollar.” P16 provided an example of strong professional development within the school board: “Our board has provided funding to buy resources for the classroom (UFLI, decodables, Heggerty), we have after school optional PD coming up, they are screening a film about LDs, we have mentor teachers travelling between schools that will support in literacy (showing how to use new screeners and programs)”.

3.2. Teacher Education Experience and Recommendations

Participants were provided with a list of topics that the R2R report recommended be taught in initial teacher education programs. A rating scale from 1 to 7 (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree) was provided for whether they had received instruction on each topic during their teacher education program (i.e., “I received instruction in _______”). Option 4 was “don’t remember”; these responses were omitted from mean calculations and questions were rescaled to be out of 6. Because there is value in understanding teachers’ perspectives on each recommendation, Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations for all recommendations. Given the number of items, no statistical comparisons were made, and instead general trends will be outlined. First, all mean ratings were situated in the “disagree” end of the response continuum (from strongly disagree to somewhat agree), indicating that respondents did not believe that their teacher education program covered the recommended literacy content. Visual inspection of the means revealed that participants were more likely to endorse learning about teaching reading comprehension, writing, and vocabulary, as well as learning about the theory behind literacy instruction. In contrast, lower-rated recommendations revolved around supporting students with the need for more intensive instruction, differentiated instruction, features of learning disabilities, and screening tools.
Teachers were also asked “Given my experience in the classroom, I would recommend that Faculties of Education provide MORE instruction to teacher candidates on ____________.” They were provided with the same recommended topics as discussed above. The 7-point scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Here, a score of “4” was neutral. Table 3 provides the rating of each recommendation divided by top and bottom endorsements. All mean ratings were closest to “agree”, indicating current teachers believed that more literacy content should be provided at Faculties of Education. However, they did not strongly favour some topics above others and instead strongly endorsed that more of all topics is necessary. However, it is worth noting the trend that the topics that they indicated they did not learn in their teacher education programs are also more likely to be ones that are more strongly endorsed for greater instruction (i.e., supports for struggling students).

3.3. Recommendations for Classroom Implementation

The R2R report provides recommendations for classroom implementation wherein some instructional approaches are endorsed and others are recommended to be discontinued. Respondents were asked on a 7-point scale from “very difficult” to “very easy” the following question: How easy do you think it would be to IMPLEMENT the following recommendations in primary classrooms? Table 4 provides a list of all Right to Read recommendations and their associated mean rating. To examine differences in the ease of implementation for various teaching behaviours, average scores were created for (1) implementing structured literacy teaching approaches (e.g., teaching phonemic awareness and phonics, using decodable texts), (2) removing balanced literacy approaches (e.g., stop using guessing strategies, stop using levelled readers), and (3) identifying and supporting struggling students. Confirmation of the validity of these three categories was determined by a principal component analysis. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that how respondents rated the ease of implementing these recommendation categories differed significantly, F(2, 58) = 12.30, p < 0.001, n2p = 0.30. Multiple post hoc comparisons were controlled for by using the Bonferroni correction. Respondents indicated that implementing structured literacy strategies (M = 5.53, SD = 1.0) was easier than both removing balanced literacy strategies (M = 4.58, SD = 1.6; p < 0.01) and supporting struggling students (M = 4.38, SD = 1.4; p < 0.001). The latter two categories did not differ significantly from each other (p = 1.00). Of note, within the supporting struggling readers category, respondents rated screeners as easier to implement than either small group or individualized instruction and small group instruction was deemed easier than individualized instruction, all ps < 0.05.

3.4. Factors Impacting Recommendation Implementation

Respondents were also asked in separate questions about barriers and facilitators: To what extent do you think each of the following factors are barriers [facilitators] to implementing the recommendations in primary literacy instruction? Participants rated each factor on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 was “not at all” and 5 was “very”. Nine factors were rated on this scale. Table 5 lists each factor and provides the mean and standard deviations of the ratings when considering the factor both as a barrier and as a facilitator. Table 5 also provides the number of respondents who chose to elaborate on that factor when asked “Please comment on the factors that you believe are the greatest barriers [facilitators] to implementation and explain why.” Asking respondents to single out factors allows for greater differentiation when respondents rate many factors as being very relevant to implementation.
A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on relevance to implementation with the type of impact (facilitator vs. barrier) and factor (9-levels) as independent variables using Greenhouse–Geiser to correct for sphericity. There was a main effect of type of impact, F(1, 29) = 5.73, p < 0.05, n2p = 0.17, wherein facilitators were perceived as more impactful than barriers. There was also a main effect of factor, F(1, 8) = 15.95, p < 0.001, n2p = 0.36. Bonferroni corrections revealed that this effect was driven by the perception that the parents’ role is significantly less important than all other factors, all ps < 0.001. The only other significant comparison was that student needs were identified as less important than adequate funding, p < 0.01. In the ratings, there was no significant interaction between type of impact and factor, F(8, 232) = 1.81, p = 0.11.
The written comments provided more nuance about the factors that were front of mind for the respondents. Respondents identified teacher training as a key factor for both barriers (60%) and facilitators (73%). Concerns about teacher training were expressed both for current teachers and teacher candidates. P27 noted that “teacher training is an issue because it costs money and this year, we haven’t been able to secure occasional teachers for release time anyway”. P11 stated that “Faculties of Education need to better prepare student candidates with the basics”. P22 shared that their “school has been lucky that [they] have purchased many new resources. Unfortunately, most teachers do not know how to properly use them”. P27 shared their ideal model of training by stating the following: “professional development that gives concrete examples and takeaways, so teachers feel ready to start implementing not just convinced that it’s a good idea; inquiry-style PD at the school level so that teachers come back together to discuss and continue their learning and support each other.” The focus on meaningful and continued professional development was viewed as a critical driver of successful implementation.
The lack of resources both in terms of classroom materials and appropriate staffing was also identified frequently as among the most important factors. P20 argued that
The greatest facilitator to implementation is access to dedicated reading coaches and quality resources. Coaches would be able to deliver constant school level PD at staff meetings and in classrooms. Having access to specialists to support the implementation make PD more meaningful and easier to implement as you have someone working alongside you to make the changes needed. Having access to quality resources is essential as many of the resources currently in buildings support a miscue approach.
P21 noted that greater ease of access to quality resources would be beneficial by sharing: “Fund the resources and have a list—this having to look and find all of our own materials and to research the best pricing and value is turning a lot of educators off”. P19 stated that currently there are not sufficient resources to provide all students with the support that they need:
Staffing—there is a huge need for intervention at this time (hopefully less once effective tier 1 instruction is implemented) and I feel it is more than can be successfully delivered in a classroom, especially with large class sizes. Not all students who really need it, especially in the middle and upper grades, are able to receive tier two or three intervention outside of classroom.
Of note, these responses identified not only what they perceived as current barriers but as proposed possible ways of addressing their concerns.
The importance of teachers’ beliefs was mentioned several times as a barrier and less so as a facilitator. P6 noted “I think that teachers’ beliefs are a major barrier because it ultimately comes down to what the teacher wants to do in their classroom behind closed doors. Even if something has become a law or mandatory, many teachers do not do it.”. P21 noted that many teachers may view the recommendations as “another ‘pendulum swing’ and are not willing to change the way we have been teaching reading because the resources, training and programming are not readily available”. P27 provided a more hopeful view of how teachers’ mindsets could be changed: “when a teacher recognizes that this approach can create breakthroughs for students who are struggling with reading, they may be more willing to use it”.
The importance of school board priorities was discussed by several respondents as a needed catalyst or facilitator of change. P16 stated “If my board wasn’t on board, that would be that”. P25 also singled out the “willingness of school boards to adopt the recommendations from the Right to Read report” as an important factor. However, P25 further stated the need for stakeholders to work together: “I also believe that collaboration between all departments (including faculties of education, teachers’ unions, administrators and departments in school boards) is key to implementation, removal of barriers at all tiers”.

4. Discussion

The current study examined factors that Ontario educators believe are important for successful implementation of the Right to Read report’s recommendations for classroom teachers. Key questions centered on professional development, ease of implementation, and perceived barriers and facilitators. Educators reported diverse experiences with receiving professional development on structured literacy with most respondents indicating that they had sought out additional training from sources outside of their school boards. Respondents also indicated that they did not receive sufficient instruction during their initial teacher education program and that they would recommend additional instruction on all recommended topics from the Right to Read report. Respondents favoured the ease of implementing structured literacy practices and felt it would be more difficult to get teachers to stop using balanced literacy approaches to teaching word reading. They also expressed concerns about being able to provide small group or individualized intervention. Key factors viewed as particularly influential for success were teacher training, available resources (materials and staff), and teachers’ beliefs.
The predominant philosophy in Ontario before the release of the Right to Read report was a balanced literacy approach wherein teachers were provided with training, materials and curriculum that aligned with this approach. Thus, it is not surprising that this approach was entrenched in Ontario classrooms [6] or that teachers may feel overwhelmed and betrayed by the education sector. One teacher shared: “We paid for teacher education once already. It was not research based and we did not know better- we trusted we were taught properly but we were not. Many children struggled and continue to struggle now because of this, including the most vulnerable members of our community who could not afford tutors”. This quote is shared here to highlight that it is counterproductive to place blame on teachers [31] and to also emphasize the need for adequate support to aid educators in their journey towards implementing the Right to Read report’s recommendations.
Data for this study were collected at the beginning of a significant paradigm shift for teachers in Ontario and before a new language curriculum was introduced. Thus, our data captured a snapshot in time before school boards could mobilize comprehensive plans to address the recommendations by training educators. Based on these responses, some school boards were more successful than others in offering educators additional training in the year following the release of the report. This reality is reflected in the variability in our participants’ responses to whether they had heard of the Right to Read report and whether they were provided with professional development. A third of the group had not received professional development and a little more than a third had professional development either through the school or from the school board. Half the sample had sought out their own learning from third parties through courses or webinars. Several educators indicated that this learning was occurring during their own time and expense. It is therefore not surprising that the factor that educators chose to elaborate on the most was professional development.
Many of the needs expressed by teachers centered around professional development as teachers felt there were few opportunities to truly learn about implementation. They suggested that “one-off” sessions were not particularly helpful and that the focus on the “why” of structured literacy rather than “how” did not enable them to implement change. Several respondents identified current barriers to professional development that included release time from their classrooms to get training. This barrier was particularly cumbersome as Ontario was experiencing a substantial teacher shortage during this period [35]. A second notable barrier was the absence of qualified consultants/coaches in structured literacy to deliver the training or on-going support. Unlike previous findings [30,32], these teachers did not express concerns about structured literacy options being overly prescriptive or a lack of teacher autonomy to make professional judgements. This finding was likely due to not having received sufficient directives or training as school boards had only just begun to mobilize. Instead, these teachers were looking for leadership from their boards in terms of providing evidence-based pedagogy and materials.
Teachers expressed preferences for the type of professional development that they believed would be beneficial. First, they expressed concern about the “basics” taught in initial teacher training programs. They indicated that they disagreed that initial teacher education programs had provided them with training that aligned with the Right to Read report’s recommendations. They also broadly endorsed the need for more initial teacher education on all topics proposed by the report. Ideally, teacher education programs would provide the theory behind teaching structured literacy along with approaches to teaching decoding skills [30,31]. Here, hands-on experience with teaching decoding skills in a systematic manner would likely aid both teachers’ competencies and their sense of self-efficacy for teaching decoding. Additionally, respondents identified knowing how to provide more intensive instruction to supporting students with reading difficulties as a concern with their initial teacher education. Providing access to evidence-based interventions during teacher training may enable future educators to better envision how these interventions can be incorporated into plans for students who are struggling. Following these recommendations would likely minimize the perceived variability in elementary teachers’ knowledge of structured literacy.
Respondents proposed having literacy coaches and communities of practice related to literacy implementation as a means of producing change in the classroom. With this approach, teachers would be able to implement structured literacy activities in their classrooms, engage in reflective practice using the assessment data that they collect, and then get feedback from their peers and literacy coaches. Mentorship and co-planning from colleagues who have greater self-efficacy for structured literacy may also provide an entry point for teachers who are uncertain, both during initial teacher education and once in practice. Community of practice models have gained traction with the education sector and have the potential for sustainable and effective professional development [36,37].
Another important barrier that was identified by respondents surrounded teachers’ beliefs. Some concerns were linked to a reluctance to change and not seeing the value of a structured literacy approach c.f., [23,24]. This reluctance was magnified by a lack of direction about how to make the shift or a feeling that the shift was only another “pendulum swing”. As a result, the more prevalent sentiments were not about a strong philosophical stance that favoured balanced literacy. Rather, reluctance was based on either a belief that the shift was not permanent or a lack of self-efficacy for employing structured literacy. As [34] noted, teachers who lack confidence in new approaches will be less likely to implement them or they may only make partial use of recommendations. They may also struggle to attribute their students’ learning outcomes to their teaching approaches and instead identify external factors as the causes for suboptimal outcomes [38]. In contrast, teachers with high self-efficacy believe that their pedagogical choices impact student success and thus are more likely to adjust in response to the outcomes that they observe in the classroom [39]. It would likely be helpful to identify the nature of a teacher’s reluctance for change and address that specific barrier through mentorship and professional development. As one participant astutely noted, if teachers can see that the changes that they are implementing are having the desired impact, they may be more likely to adopt a new approach.
Importantly, our respondents felt that adopting structured literacy practices would be among the easier shifts to make as part of adopting the Right to Read report’s recommendations. This finding is hopeful and may indicate some success from their previous professional development experiences (particularly external workshops) in demonstrating how structured literacy functions. However, the respondents indicated that stopping balanced literacy practices is more difficult. Of note, at the time of data collection, the primary classrooms were stocked with balanced literacy materials (e.g., assessment tools and levelled readers) and curriculum expectations were based on balanced literacy. In their comments, teachers indicated a strong need for new materials (e.g., decodable books) to align with structured literacy. One participant nicely summed up the situation by saying:
There is no training available for teachers unless they are willing to do the research and [professional development] on their own time and with their own budget. The same goes for having the appropriate resources (e.g., decodable texts, phonics curriculums, etc.). This is a huge shift in thinking for many educators and without proper training to understand the why it is difficult for them to shift their practices without proper support and resources.
Future research should collect subsequent data as the shift continues to examine if providing consistent access to appropriate materials and training results in widespread discontinuation of balanced literacy practices. Once most teachers are utilizing structured literacy approaches, attention may turn to teachers who have not adopted structured literacy to identify the sources of their reluctance.
Supporting students who are struggling with word reading development by providing additional small group or individualized instruction was also identified as being difficult to implement in the current educational context. Respondents indicated that identifying “at-risk” students through screeners was easier to implement, but once students are identified, teachers did not have sufficient time or appropriate staff support to implement more intensive instruction, particularly with concerns over class sizes. Additionally, they reported a lack of knowledge about how to support students with more intensive instruction. This gap was identified as being due to lack of preparation in initial teacher education and through professional development opportunities.
Some respondents indicated that the number of current students who need extra support has overwhelmed the system such that there was greater need from students than there was capacity. This conclusion was also drawn in the Right to Read report [6]. Consistent with this statement, in the 2018–2019 academic year, a quarter of Grade 3 students and a fifth of Grade 6 students were not meeting grade-level expectations. Even more critically, half of students who were receiving special education services were not meeting grade-level expectations in literacy [6]. These values are greater than what would be predicted in a tiered model of service delivery where we would expect approximately 15% for small group interventions and 5% for individualized interventions [40]. Nonetheless, some teachers were hopeful that once effective general classroom literacy instruction was consistently applied in primary grades, the number of struggling students would diminish in upper years, thereby allowing intensive instruction to be limited to a much smaller subset of struggling students.
The results of the current study should be interpreted considering its limitations. Ideally, our sample size should have been larger to ensure that the sample was representative of Ontario teachers. However, even with a small sample size, there was a great deal of variability in reported professional development opportunities as it related to the Right to Read report. Yet despite this variability, commonly endorsed factors with respect to the needs of teachers to implement classroom changes emerged. Secondly, it would have been beneficial to follow-up with participants through focus groups to obtain greater detail about how they envision receiving support for implementation. Nonetheless, providing respondents an opportunity to elaborate with open-ended questions in the questionnaire did allow for greater insight to the factors that were truly top of mind for our teachers. Finally, it is important to note that these perspectives were collected at the very start of the shift towards structured literacy. The factors that have been identified as most relevant should shift as further support is provided to classroom teachers by their school boards.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the current study revealed teachers’ perspectives on the ease of implementation of the Right to Read report’s recommendations. They highlighted key pressure points that were making implementation difficult at the start of this shift. However, they also expressed a willingness for change and provided important recommendations on how to promote and sustain a shift towards structured literacy. Listening to the concerns and applying the suggestions are critical for continued momentum towards successful implementation. Future research should follow the progress of implementation as it will be a gradual process, likely with different facilitators and barriers along the way.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci14070791/s1, Text S1. Right to Read Questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.C.F.; methodology, D.C.F.; software, D.C.F.; validation, D.C.F.; formal analysis, D.C.F. and A.H.; investigation, D.C.F.; resources, D.C.F.; data curation, D.C.F.; writing—original draft preparation, D.C.F. and A.H.; writing—review and editing, D.C.F. and A.H.; visualization, D.C.F.; supervision, D.C.F.; project administration, D.C.F.; funding acquisition, D.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. Internal funding was received from the Centre for School Mental Health at Western University for a summer student internship. Internal funding was also received from the Faculty of Education at Western University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Western University (protocol code 120120 6 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author as this procedure was agreed to by participants during informed consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Share, D.L. Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 1995, 55, 151–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Castles, A.; Rastle, K.; Nation, K. Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2018, 19, 5–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Seidenberg, M.S. Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done about It; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017; p. 384. [Google Scholar]
  4. Savage, R.; Georgiou, G.; Parrila, R.; Maiorino, K. Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners. Sci. Stud. Read. 2018, 22, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Friesen, D.C.; Schmidt, K.; Atwal, T.; Celebre, A. Predicting reading comprehension performance with strategy use: Comparing bilingual children to their monolingual peers and to bilingual adults. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 986937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Executive Summary: Right to Read, Public Inquiry into Human Rights Issues Affecting Students with Reading Disabilities. 2022. Available online: https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Right%20to%20Read%20Executive%20Summary_OHRC%20English_0.pdf?_gl=1*cldxbe*_ga*NTIxNDgxNDY1LjE3MTQ4MjkyODU.*_ga_K3JBNZ5N4P*MTcxNDgyOTI4NS4xLjEuMTcxNDgyOTMzNi4wLjAuMA (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  7. Cunningham, A.E.; Stanovich, K.E. The impact of print exposure on word recognition. In Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy; Metsala, J.L., Ehri, L.C., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Houston, TX, USA, 1998; pp. 235–262. [Google Scholar]
  8. Metsala, J.L.; David, M.D.; Brown, S. An examination of reading skills and reading outcomes for youth involved in a crime prevention program. Read. Writ. Q. 2017, 33, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kudo, M.F.; Lussier, C.M.; Swanson, H.L. Reading disabilities in children: A selective meta-analysis of the cognitive literature. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2015, 40, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. Literature Framework to Guide the PACFOLD Research Study. 2005. Available online: http://www.pacfold.ca/download/Supplementary/Framework.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2023).
  11. Lindén-Boström, M.; Persson, C. Disparities in mental health among adolescents with and without impairments. Scand. J. Public Health 2015, 43, 728–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Livingston, E.M.; Siegel, L.S.; Ribary, U. Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences. Aust. J. Learn. Diffic. 2018, 23, 107–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Svensson, I.; Fälth, L.; Persson, B. Reading level and the prevalence of a dyslexic profile among patients in a forensic psychiatric clinic. J. Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2015, 26, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ehri, L.C. The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Read. Res. Q. 2020, 55, S45–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. 2000. Available online: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook (accessed on 29 September 2023).
  16. Rose, J. Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties: An Independent Report from Sir Jim Rose to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. 2009. Available online: http://www.thedyslexia-spldtrust.org.uk/media/downloads/inline/the-rose-report.1294933674.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2023).
  17. Brady, S. A 2020 perspective on research findings on alphabetics (phoneme awareness and phonics): Implications for instruction. Read. Leag. J. 2020, 1, 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Right to Read, Public Inquiry into Human Rights Issues Affecting Students with Reading Disabilities. 2022. Available online: https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-read-public-inquiry-on-reading-disabilities (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  19. Ontario Ministry of Education. Learning for All: A Guide to Effective Assessment and Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. 2013. Available online: https://files.ontario.ca/edu-learning-for-all-2013-en-2022-01-28.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  20. Vaughn, S.; Linan-Thompson, S.; Kouzekanani, K.; Pedrotty Bryant, D.; Dickson, S.; Blozis, S.A. Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2003, 24, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ontario Ministry of Education. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1–8: Language. 2006. Available online: https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  22. Ontario Ministry of Education. Early Reading Strategy. 2003. Available online: https://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/march_2011/features/camp_or_school_extras/reading.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  23. Klein, P.D. Response to Cummins: The OHRC Right to Read Report will move Ontario into the 21st century. J. Teach. Learn. 2022, 16, 96–108. Available online: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1096540ar (accessed on 25 September 2023). [CrossRef]
  24. Cummins, J. Ontario Human Rights Commission Right to Read Report: Sincere, passionate, flawed. J. Teach. Learn. 2022, 16, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Solity, J. Instructional psychology and teaching reading: An analysis of the evidence underpinning government policy and practice. Rev. Educ. 2022, 10, e3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wyse, D.; Bradbury, A. Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading. Rev. Educ. 2022, 10, e3314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hendry, H. Becoming a teacher of early reading: Charting the knowledge and practices of pre-service and newly qualified teachers. Literacy 2020, 54, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Allington, R.L. Reading lessons and federal policy making: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Elem. Sch. J. 2006, 107, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dewitz, P.; Graves, M.F. The science of reading: Four forces that modified, distorted, or ignored the research finding on reading comprehension. Read. Res. Q. 2021, 56, S131–S144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brenner, D. Strategies for becoming involved in policy: What was learned when faculty opposed a stand-alone course in phonics. J. Lit. Res. 2007, 39, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mosley Wetzel, M.; Skerrett, A.; Maloch, B.; Flores, T.T.; Infante-Sheridan, M.; Murdter-Atkinson, J.; Charlene Godfrey, V.; Duffy, A. Resisting positionings of struggle in “Science of Teaching Reading” discourse: Counterstories of teachers and teacher educators in Texas. Read. Res. Q. 2020, 55, S319–S330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Valli, L.; Croninger, R.G.; Buese, D. Studying high-quality teaching in a highly charged policy environment. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2012, 114, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Taylor, B.M.; Pearson, P.D.; Peterson, D.S.; Rodriguez, M.C. The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Read. Res. Q. 2005, 40, 40–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marais, A.; Wessels, E. Investigating the interpretation and implementation of policies that guide the teaching of reading in the foundation phase. Read. Writ. 2020, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Balintec, V. Ontario Is Facing a Teacher Shortage. So Why Is It Taking So Long to Certify New Ones? CBC News. 3 February 2022. Available online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-is-facing-a-teacher-shortage-so-why-is-it-taking-so-long-to-certify-new-ones-1.6336574 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  36. Chaplin, D.; Munn, H. We are all in this together: Building learning communities of practice in higher education through quality mentoring in the early years initial teacher training. Teach. Educ. Adv. 2020, 12, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kleinschmit, A.J.; Rosenwald, A.; Ryder, E.F.; Donovan, S.; Murdoch, B.; Grandgenett, N.F.; Pauley, M.; Triplett, E.; Tapprich, W.; Morgan, W. Accelerating STEM education reform: Linked communities of practice promote creation of open educational resources and sustainable professional development. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2023, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brouwers, A.; Tomic, W. A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2000, 16, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Woolfolk-Hoy, A.; Davis, H.; Pape, S.J. Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In Handbook of Educational Psychology; Alexander, P.A., Winne, P.H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Houston, TX, USA, 2006; pp. 715–737. [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson, K.; Hutchison, N. Tiered Approaches to the Education of Students with Learning Disabilities. 2014. Available online: https://www.ldatschool.ca/tiered-approaches-to-the-education-of-students-with-learning-disabilities/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
Table 1. Ratings (means and standard deviations) and response frequencies of knowledge of the Right to Read report and professional development opportunities.
Table 1. Ratings (means and standard deviations) and response frequencies of knowledge of the Right to Read report and professional development opportunities.
StatementMean (SD)Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree
I am aware of the recommendations of the R2R report.4.07 (1.1)13 (43.3%)10 (33.3%)5 (16.6%)0 (0%)2 (6.6%)
I have read at least one section of the R2R report.4.03 (1.2)12 (40.0%)13 (43.3%)1 (3.3%)2 (6.6%)2 (6.6%)
I have attended professional development sessions about the R2R report.3.27 (1.5)10 (33.3%)4 (13.3%)4 (13.3%)8 (26.6%)4 (13.3%)
I have received training in the Science of Reading. *3.28 (1.4)8 (27.6%)6 (20.7%)4 (13.8%)8 (27.6%)3 (10.3%)
I have been given resources to use in my classroom based on the Science of Reading. *3.55 (1.5)10 (34.5%)8 (27.6%)3 (10.3%)4 (13.8%)4 (13.8%)
Note. * Only 29 participants responded to these items.
Table 2. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) of participants’ agreement that the topic was covered in their teacher education program.
Table 2. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) of participants’ agreement that the topic was covered in their teacher education program.
Top Endorsed TopicsMean (SD)Bottom Endorsed TopicsMean (SD)
How to teach reading comprehension 3.61 (1.4)Late reading interventions (grade 4–8) that are evidence-based for students who are struggling1.92 (1.5)
How to teach writing3.34 (1.5)How to use scientifically validated early screening tools to identify students at risk of reading difficulties2.00 (1.5)
The importance of word reading fluency for reading comprehension3.22 (1.7)Early warning signs of risk for reading disabilities2.38 (1.7)
How to teach vocabulary3.21 (1.7)How to gauge students’ progress in foundational spelling skills2.38 (1.6)
Models of reading development3.15 (1.6)Early reading interventions (grade 1–3) that are evidence-based for students who are struggling2.38(1.7)
The importance of word reading accuracy for reading comprehension3.15 (1.7)How to provide immediate focused reading instruction to students who need it 2.40 (1.7)
How to teach oral language2.90 (1.4)Systematic and direct instruction in spelling at different grade levels2.42 (1.6)
How to differentiate reading instruction for students with reading disabilities2.81 (1.7)The importance of teaching foundational skills in reading to address inequality for historically disadvantaged student populations2.42 (1.6)
The structure of spoken and written words2.78 (1.7)The core features of dyslexia2.42 (1.7)
How to teach foundational word reading in the classroom2.70 (1.7)How to gauge students’ progress in foundational word reading2.46 (1.6)
The importance of teaching foundational skills in reading to address the needs of students with reading disabilities2.69 (1.7)How to identify students who need immediate reading intervention2.48 (1.7)
How to teach spelling2.68 (1.7)How to implement reading accommodations in the classroom2.48 (1.7)
How accurate and efficient early word reading develops2.56 (1.7)Systematic and direct instruction in word reading at different grade levels2.55 (1.5)
Table 3. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) of participants’ agreement that the topic should be covered in teacher education programs.
Table 3. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) of participants’ agreement that the topic should be covered in teacher education programs.
Top Endorsed TopicsMean (SD)Bottom Endorsed TopicsMean (SD)
How to differentiate reading instruction for students with reading disabilities6.40 (1.3)Models of reading development5.73 (1.5)
Late reading interventions (grade 4–8) that are evidence-based for students who are struggling6.40 (1.3)The structure of spoken and written words6.0 (1.3)
How to implement reading accommodations in the classroom6.40 (1.3)How accurate and efficient early word reading develops6.0 (1.5)
Early warning signs of risk for reading disabilities6.40 (1.3)How to gauge students’ progress in foundational spelling skills6.03 (1.4)
The importance of teaching foundational skills in reading to address the needs of students with reading disabilities6.40 (1.3)The importance of word reading accuracy for reading comprehension6.03 (1.4)
Early reading interventions (grade 1–3) that are evidence-based for students who are struggling6.37 (1.3)The importance of word reading fluency for reading comprehension6.03 (1.3)
How to identify students who need immediate reading intervention6.33 (1.3)How to teach writing6.07 (1.5)
The core features of dyslexia6.30 (1.4)How to teach reading comprehension6.10 (1.3)
How to use scientifically validated early screening tools to identify students at risk of reading difficulties6.30 (1.3)How to gauge students’ progress in foundational word reading skills6.13 (1.4)
How to teach foundational word reading in the classroom6.30 (1.3)How to teach vocabulary6.13 (1.3)
How to teach foundational spelling skills in the classroom6.27 (1.3)How to teach oral language6.17 (1.3)
How to provide immediate focused reading instruction to students who need it. 6.27 (1.4)Systematic and direct instruction in spelling at different grade levels6.23 (1.4)
Systematic and direct instruction in word reading at different grade levels6.27 (1.3)The importance of teaching foundational skills in reading to address inequality for historically disadvantaged student populations6.23 (1.3)
Table 4. Rating means (and standard deviations) for ease of classroom recommendations.
Table 4. Rating means (and standard deviations) for ease of classroom recommendations.
Classroom RecommendationsMean (SD)
Structured Literacy Practices5.53 (1.0)
Provide direct instruction in phonics.5.70 (1.1)
Provide direct instruction in phonemic awareness.5.70 (1.2)
Provide direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies.5.63 (1.1)
Provide direct instruction in word reading fluency.5.53 (1.1)
Teach using decodable texts in K-2.5.07 (1.4)
Balanced Literacy Practices4.58 (1.6)
Stop teaching guessing strategies for word reading (e.g., using external cues like the picture to identify the word).5.00 (2.0)
Stop using running records and miscue analyses. 4.63 (1.9)
Stop teaching reading within the current gradual release of responsibility model (e.g., modelled, shared, collaborative, independent).4.37 (1.6)
Stop using levelled readers.4.30 (2.0)
Identifying and Supporting Struggling Readers4.38 (1.4)
Screen all students twice a year (beginning and mid-year) from K to grade 2 in foundational reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness, word reading). 5.17 (1.7)
Provide intervention to students who require additional support (small-group interventions for students who struggle with evidence-based classroom instruction). 4.33 (1.6)
Provide more intensive and often individualized interventions for students who are still struggling after receiving small-group intervention.3.63 (1.7)
Note. Bolded values indicate the mean of each recommendation category.
Table 5. Ratings (means and standard deviations) and frequency for barriers and facilitators.
Table 5. Ratings (means and standard deviations) and frequency for barriers and facilitators.
BarriersFacilitators
Mean (SD)FrequencyMean (SD)Frequency
Funding4.43 (1.1)84.77 (0.8)9
Staffing4.40 (1.0)94.43 (1.0)10
Classroom Materials4.36 (1.0)214.50 (1.1)14
Teacher Training4.30 (1.0)194.80 (1.0)23
Class Sizes4.23 (1.2)74.40 (1.1)7
Teacher Beliefs4.07 (1.3)114.20 (1.4)7
School Board Priorities3.80 (1.4)64.37 (1.2)8
Student Needs3.57 (1.5)84.17 (1.4)6
Parents2.40 (1.5)23.20 (1.7)1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Friesen, D.C.; Hennessy, A. Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementing Ontario’s Right to Read Report’s Recommendations. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070791

AMA Style

Friesen DC, Hennessy A. Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementing Ontario’s Right to Read Report’s Recommendations. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(7):791. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070791

Chicago/Turabian Style

Friesen, Deanna C., and Abagail Hennessy. 2024. "Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementing Ontario’s Right to Read Report’s Recommendations" Education Sciences 14, no. 7: 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070791

APA Style

Friesen, D. C., & Hennessy, A. (2024). Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementing Ontario’s Right to Read Report’s Recommendations. Education Sciences, 14(7), 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070791

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop